Below is a snapshot of the Web page as it appeared on 6/6/2023 (the last time our crawler visited it). This is the version of the page that was used for ranking your search results. The page may have changed since we last cached it. To see what might have changed (without the highlights), go to the current page.
Bing is not responsible for the content of this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Event Venues/Sports task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task forceTemplate:WikiProject Sports facilities task forceEvent Venues/Sports task force articles
This article has been rated as Start-Class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Branding vs COMMONNAME - this is not right, against wiki guidelines and principles. Corporate shilling[edit]
In ordinary/daily usage, also in media reporting, this is 99% of the time "Nat Bailey Stadium". The inclusion of the Scotiabank branding, including very blatantly in the infobox, is very much against Wikipedia policy and guidelines and principles. Something very wrong here. Who moved this from Nat Bailey Stadium and how did that logo ever get by the image licensing bunch? No doubt some interpretation of the name guidelines has "allowed" this but it's not right. Not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.48.242.60 (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do need a very in depth consensus discussion before a unilateral move such as this. I tagged the redirect for deletion so we can move it back. Once that is done then we can have an RfC on any move.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Typically stadiums in MLB and MiLB have been placed at their corporate names irregardless of having a pre-existing non-corporate name used by the public. Examples are too numerous to list but some obvious ones would be Qualcomm Stadium, O.co Coliseum, SAP Center, US Cellular Field, etc... All had pre-existing and more commonly used names but are none-the-less located at their official names. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article is about the stadium though and not the field. If you want to create a spam article about the field then feel free to do so. The common name used by Vancouverites is Nat Bailey. Media repeats the spam name probably because of advertising standards.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The field is simply part of the overall stadium and is not notable for its own standalone article. That said the official name of the stadium currently includes a corporate moniker. I too find it a distasteful practice, but that doesn't change the fact that the stadium currently has a corporate name. It doesn't make the article an ad itself to accurately mention said name. And we do strive for accuracy here. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the OP states most sources still refer to it as Nat Bailey. Just because a corporation wants to try and rebrand if for spam purposes there is no reason we should do the same. I tried removing the self-published source to this lame claim and it was reverted. See Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are only three of 97 results for Nat Bailey Staduim. I searched the same paper for Scotiabank Field and got 0 results. The Vancouver Sun has 201 Nat Bailey Stadium and also zero for Scotiabank Field. These are the largest two papers that serve the area.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
http://www.cbc.ca/ 208 for Nat Bailey Stadium and zero for Scotiabank Field. These are the two largest TV stations that serve the area.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
